Woodward's Source - Now The Times Points To Armitage

The pretty slim "not telling" list consists of Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State and our leading suspect; David Addington, counsel to the Vice President; and Catherine Martin, former public affairs director.

According to Bob Woodward's editor Len Downie, "the source was one who had been interviewed many times for Woodward's 2004 book", according to Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft.

Hmm. Of the three candidates on offer, who would be the most likely fit? I'm staying with Armitage.

MORE: Sure, someone could be lying.

STILL MORE: What do we know about Woodward's source? Here is the old clue, from WaPo editor Len Downie:

DOWNIE: ...he had first told me in late October about
the fact that he had had this conversation back in June of 2003.

It was a very brief part of a much longer interview that Bob was
conducting for his book with a source that he had conducted many
interviews with for his book. And at the time, he doesn't think if was
very important. And it was a king of byplay that wasn't even part of
the interview that he was conducting.

The senior administration official who told him about CIA operative
Valerie Plame and her position at the agency is a confidential source
in a book Woodward is writing on President Bush's second term, "a book
I will be delighted to be judged on," he said.

Does that rule out Armitage, who does not leap to mind as a likely authority on Bush's second term? Not exactly - in his original statement explaining this, Woodward did mention that in mid-2003 he was doing research on the second term book:

The interviews were mostly confidential background interviews for my
2004 book "Plan of Attack" about the leadup to the Iraq war, ongoing
reporting for The Washington Post and research for a book on Bush's
second term to be published in 2006.

As the astute "MJW" points out in the comments, "The circumstances surrounding Rice's replacement of Powell as Secretary of State will certainly be covered in the book". So Armitage would certainly have a lot to add to that.

UPDATE: Laura Rozen tells us that reporter Viveca Novak will be testifying.

A second Time magazine reporter has agreed to cooperate in the CIA leak case and will testify about her discussions with Karl Rove's
attorney, a sign that prosecutors are still exploring charges against
the White House aide.

Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperating
with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak
of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazine
reported in its Dec. 5 issue.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about
conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May
2004, the magazine reported.

Novak, part of a team tracking the CIA case for Time, has written or
contributed to articles in which Luskin characterized the nature of
what was said between Rove and Matthew Cooper, the first Time reporter
who testified in the case.

What Fitzgerald hopes to get from her that he can't get directly from Luskin is a mystery to me. And why the reporter agreed to cooperate is a puzzle - is Luskin suspected of some crime? Did he lie to Fitzgerald but tell the truth to a reporter?

If Luskin is not suspected of a crime, why does he not retain the normal source confidentialty privileges? Did Luskin waive them for some reason? Were all of his interviews completely on the record? Or has TIME simply thrown in the towel and decided not to oppose this prosecutor?

Sorry for all the questions - here is the TIME article itself, which answers none of them. Not of interest to their readers, I guess.

Fitz wants to talk to another one of Time magazine's reporters about Rove related stuff.

wishfull thinking dude

Listening to Meet the Press, heard Russert mention that now Time's Viveca Novak has been asked to testify by Fitzgerald. She wrote the big Time piece on Woodward's conversation with his source ... Is she being asked to testify about what Woodward told her? As I remember, what was key about what Woodward told her, was that he (Woodward) had pushed his source to come forward to Fitzgerald:

... When Fitzgerald said Libby was the first known Administration official to reveal Plame's name to a reporter, Woodward called his source, he says, and noted the timing of their conversation. "My source then said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor," he says. "I said, 'If you do, am I released [from our confidentiality agreement]?'" According to Woodward, the source said yes, but only to talk to Fitzgerald about the conversation, not to reveal the source's name publicly. Woodward has refused to say publicly who the source is but notes that "the process of my reporting was the catalyst for the source to go to the prosecutor and for me to be called by Fitzgerald." Woodward also told TIME that he had gone to his source twice before -- once in 2004 and the second time earlier this year -- and asked to be released from his pledge, but that the source had declined. ...

WASHINGTON - A second Time magazine reporter has been asked to testify in the CIA leak case, this time about her discussions with Karl Rove's attorney, a sign that prosecutors are still exploring charges against the White House aide.

Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperating with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazine reported in its Dec. 5 issue.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May 2004, the magazine reported.

Novak, part of a team tracking the CIA case for Time, has written or contributed to articles quoting Luskin that characterized the nature of what was said between Rove and Matthew Cooper, the first Time reporter who testified in the case in July.

Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperating with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazine reported in its Dec. 5 issue.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May 2004, the magazine reported.

Of course, it's possible that she's also being asked to testify about another Bush administration official who talked to Woodward, and this is a piece of indirection from TIME.

The thing that surprised me about the Times graphic was that Hadley was nowhere to be found, as far as I could see. I thought he was the second leading candidate after Armitage. Or did I miss him?

OK...my opinion of Fitzgerald is dropping, dropping. Why couldn't he get the nature of Rove's talk w/Cooper from, er, Cooper and Rove who were involved in the little chats. Does he think one is lying and is now reduced to going to Cooper's colleague to get the truth, because, we all know reporters never lie (stop laughing!). He needs to go home. If he indicts Rove based on his shoddy investigation, he'll look like an even bigger fool.

Maybe Fitz is going to indict all the lawyers first and then all the reporters.

I've heard rumors that Fitzgerald is preparing to indict all 576 government officials who "leaked" Valerie Plame's identity and also indict the 17,431 reporters they leaked to, who did not come forward.

Jeff, Initially, I have to admit that I thouhgt Fitzgerald tried to be fair. At least he didn't indict 22 Bush officials like the leftists were predicting.

I do admit to being somewhat baffled by his baseball analogies and I'm a baseball fan.

I'm starting to think that Fitzgerald bought off early on Rove and Libby as the bad guys. We've had many more revelations and he's stuck on, well, Rove. I mean could he at least look at:

Woodward's source
Wilson and Kristoff
Andrea Mitchell
Pincus

I mean, if it's not related to Rove or Libby, he's not interested. He bought off on the narrative of Wilson as whistleblower and Rove and Libby as bad guys and can't look elsewhere, not a sign of a good investigator.

However,I do have some hope. I truy believe, he would not have gone for a second GJ to just rehash Rove material. He could have borrowed a GJ.

No, he's going after something else besides Rove, who I expect he will clear. So maybe he finally is branching out.

Who knows how precise this is, but this from Howell, who spoke with Woodward, in the WaPo today sure makes it sound like his source is someone other than Armitage:

The senior administration official who told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency is a confidential source in a book Woodward is writing on President Bush's second term, "a book I will be delighted to be judged on," he said.

I suppose it's possible that Armitage, who didn't make it anywhere near Bush's second term, resigning shortly after the 2004 election, is a confidential source for Woodward's book on that second term. And maybe this is a deliberate piece of misdirection on Woodward's part. But it sure makes it sound like it's someone else.

Kate - That is some odd reasoning you've got going on, and a couple of missed facts, such as the fact that Fitzgerald has questioned Woodward's source. And we really still hardly know what is actually going on with the investigation, so for all we know he may be interested in more people than just Libby and Rove. But anyway, I think you may have misread the AP story. It did not claim to know what about her discussions with Luskin Fitzgerald is interested in. The AP just was characterizing what was published in TIME. So it seems wrong to criticize Fitzgerald for doing something that it's not at all clear that he's doing (asking V. Novak where he could ask Cooper or Rove, for instance).

Kate - Yes, pretty clearly Fitzgerald did not talk to Woodward's source about his conversation with Woodward while the first grand jury was seated since he (Fitzgerald) didn't know about it then. The point is that he has questioned both of them now, and we have no idea where, if anywhere, that will lead. There's no reason to imagine that there is one and only one track to the investigation. Maybe Fitzgerald is pursuing the investigation of both Rove and Armitage or Hadley or whoever Woodward's source is, to say nothing of others. We just don't know.

The left side of the blogosphere seems to think Vivica is Robert Novak's daughter. The web doesn't seem to want to give up any info on such a relationship. Does anyone know if this is real or not?

I've noticed in the past that it can be difficult to determine the truth of these things, knowing how sensitive people are to nepotism, for good reason I might add, Americans HATE nepotism, but if this fact were true, it would certainly ADD some interesting info to Bob's blowup last year.

Don't forget Bob Joseph and Fred Fleitz. The NYT article doesn't name either of them as denying involvement. Both would have known about Wilson's wife. And both would have had enough inside information to be among Woodward's sources for "Plan of Attack".

Woodward claims to have interviewed 75 key decision makers for his book. That number surely includes many in the White House, State and CIA who knew about Wilson's wife - more than the Times has on their list.

I'm intrigued by the inclusion of Catherine Martin. I know zero about her, except for the fact that Chris Matthews quoted her saying that "Scooter thinks anytime anybody uses the word 'neoconservative' it's anti-Semitic." In that regard, it seems almost more likely that she might have been the SAO who originally pulled the plug on the outing operation -- not the one doing the outing herself.

Matthews & Wilson were obviously in touch, and Martin's comment seems more than a little out of school for a WH spokesman, doesn't it? What else do we know about her? Does anyone know the circumstances of her departure?

I don't know about anybody else, but your double dashlines make the flow between posts really confusing for me. Makes it look like your name goes with the text below, and your text with the name above. I wonder if maybe they show up differently in your browser than they do in mine, because they trip me up almost every time -- even when my own posts are the next in line!

How common is it to question a reporter about a conversation with someone's attorney to get to that person? What of attorney/client privilege? Not applicable here?

Reporters don't want to talk about their sources, and attorneys aren't supposed to have to reveal information about their clients...yet Fitzgerald wants this to happen?
What might be happening here that makes this not a big deal?

I have such a poor memory that the lines allow me to refresh a thread quickly. Also, I originally learned to use them on a board with unique and antique software. I don't even remember all the ways they helped.
========================================

Though Armitage may be a slightly less likely candidate for Woodward's source for the Plame information if the same person was also a source for Woodward's book on Bush's second term, he is by no means eliminated. The circumstances surrounding Rice's replacement of Powell as Secretary of State will certainly be covered in the book, and not only did Armitage work under Powell, but they are also good friends.

We had a nursing home ladies sewing circle, the purty dozen, who'd parallel process a millenium of living into some purty potent pearls. They got a little steamed at griesedieck boilermaker jack-off Daniel's fierce lyin' an' den Maudie got snide about male escorts.

The senior administration official who told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency is a confidential source in a book Woodward is writing on President Bush's second term, "a book I will be delighted to be judged on," he said.

Interestingly, in Woodward's original statement he mentioned that his source was involved with either Plan of Attack or an upcoming book on Bush's second term.

All the follow-up focused on "Plan of Attack" (and what do we do with Downie's statement about the source?), but none of the folks clealry mentioned by Woodward looked like good picks for the second term book.

Does he prefer to be judged 'on the book', or 'upon it'? What about it's contents? Some of its characters need judging. The plot develops. It's got lyin's.
===============================================

I retract my "stupid on purpose" statement. While I think the end-run around attorney client priviledge unlikely (how big a mouth would Luskin really have in 2004?), I've seen enough Law&Orders to imagine a scenario. Sorry.

To add to my previous post, according to Woodward, his source told him about Plame in mid-June 2003, so if he was being interviewed for a book about Bush's second term, it was purely speculative; while if he was being interviewed for Plan of Attack, which was published in April 2004, it would be about right.

Fitz could also checking out information given to him by Luskin which Luskin may have claimed to have received Viveca. It is hard for me to think he is going after Luskin, or Rove, by pressuring Luskin. But, as Jim E says, it could be a Jack McCoy type trick.
: ^ )

No telling what these prosecutors will do if they feel like they are being jerked around.

While I think the end-run around attorney client priviledge unlikely (how big a mouth would Luskin really have in 2004?), I've seen enough Law&Orders to imagine a scenario.

I gotta go for unlikely. I mean Fitzgerald is really going to jettison the 5th & 6th Amendments entirely to avoid stepping on journalistic privilege, which is basically just an emanation of a penumbra of the 1st amendment?

Tom, don't forget that Woodward made the following slip-up, according to the Media Bistro transcript of last Monday's interview on Larry King Live:

"So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you do an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this."

And Woodward was being so careful with his him/her, he/she, his/hers pronoun-cements!

I wonder how long Armitage can hold up to the pressure of not issuing a denial - assuming it isn't him. I was really expecting to hear something like that the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. I mean, he's just about all alone as the chief suspect right now.

The longer we don't hear from him the more I think its him. Especially when we have the news dailies and weeklies openly speculating about him.

When Fitzgerald said Libby was the first known Administration official to reveal Plame's name to a reporter, Woodward called his source, he says, and noted the timing of their conversation. "My source then said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor," he says.

To me this implies that his source had not previously been interviewed by Fitz. Woodward appears to be saying that since Fitz said Libby was the 'first known' at his news conference his source was then required to go set the record straight. So I think whoever his source is, he either has not (or had not then) talked to the SP or Woodward thinks that's the case.

"I said, 'If you do, am I released [from our confidentiality agreement]?'" According to Woodward, the source said yes, but only to talk to Fitzgerald about the conversation, not to reveal the source's name publicly. Woodward has refused to say publicly who the source is but notes that "the process of my reporting was the catalyst for the source to go to the prosecutor and for me to be called by Fitzgerald."

"the process of my reporting was the catalyst for the source to go to the prosecutor and for me to be called by Fitzgerald."? What reporting? I haven't seen or heard of Woodward doing any reporting on the Plame matter. What had Woodward learned, or what could he possibly have learned, that became the catalyst for this person to come forward?

Assume its Armitage for example. What could Woodward have learned and told him that would somehow impel him to come forward, when nothing heretofore had done so - including Libby being indicted with the SP making statements about the case that this source knew weren't true?

Dwilkers, can't process of my reporting include the calling and interviewing and prodding of the source? That's what I think he means. I'm watching him right now on LKL, btw.

I don't know that his source will ever come forward, unless there is some benefit to that source. Or some harm to Scooter Libby if s/he doesn't come forward publicly. The source could easily decide to wait it out, knowing the public has a relatively short attention span.

Re attorney/client privilege , apparently there isn't a simple answer. Firedoglake
has a very long discussion in which she acknowledges she changed her mind a couple of times .Meanwhile anticipating the charge that liberals will approve because they're desperate to see Rove indicted: I'm desperate to see Rove indicted and I don't approve.

The public's attention span can be flamed with the flow of new information. I'm just thinking, if it's an Armitage leak - or I should say if it doesn't point to Rove or Cheney- those that fan the flames will lose interest.

I'm still perplexed by the Novak/Luskin story. As far as I can tell, Luskin is under no obligation to be truthful with a reporter, and when he was truthful, if it was about his client, I don't see how Fitzgerald can go after that.
Fitzgerald wouldn't be going after something as lame as Luskin leaking Grand Jury info, would he?
I must be way off base.

MJW and TM's collective point is well taken, though I find the idea that Woodward was conducting interviews for his book on Bush's second term in mid-2003 a little odd. I guess we know who he was rooting for in 2004: wouldn't want all that research to go to waste. Given that Woodward seems to want his source's identity to be revealed, it seems weird that he would give Howell such a misleading line, if Armitage is his source. But who knows.

As for Fitzgerald and V. Novak and Luskin, has anyone considered the idea that Fitzgerald is still doublechecking Rove's last-minute stories and so he may be looking to Novak for what he expects to be exculpatory testimony? I have no idea, just a thought.

MayBee,
There is no attorney-client privilege issue here. Anything an attorney says to a third party is, by definition, not privileged. I don't see how anything Luskin said to Viveca Novak is covered by the attorney-client privilege.

TM,
As for DOJ guidelines, they may not be an issue here either. If Fitzgerald is asking Novak about conversations she had with Luskin on the record, there is no reporter-source issue and (unless I'm mistaken) the DOJ guidelines don't apply. If Luskin was an anonymous source, that's another issue. But that may not be the case given that Luskin has already been named as the source in question. For whatever reason, Fitzgerald may be interested in confirming what Luskin told Novak on the record.

Attorney/client privilege is the client's to waive, not the attorneys. Disclosure of privileged information by the attorney might land the attorney in malpractice land, but it wouldn't necessarily waive the attorney/client privilege.

Fitz might be after attorney work product, though - where Luskin is going (or coming from) with his defense. It's certainly an interesting tactic.

If Rove was leaking stuff to Viveca, via Luskin, in May 2004 that he didn't remember until October 2004 or October 2005 (I think he testified both Octobers), Rove would seem to have a problem. If so, I would think Rove would want to immediately fight to disallow Viveca's testimony from ever taking place.

On the other hand, if Rove and Luskin don't go apeshit over Viveca's being allowed to testify, it would appear that they WANT her to testify. While I can't figure out a scenario in which Viveca helps Rove, maybe what Rove told Fitz right before Libby's indictment can be verified by Viveca. I just don't get this.

Empty Wheel has posted a theory once or twice removed from Daily Kos about V. Novak's testimony, for whatever it's worth. The speculation has Luskin talking to Novak about Rove's conversation with Cooper at a time before Rove "officially" remembered the Cooper call, thus contradicting Rove's testimony.

The Strata-Sphere believes this development is further proof that Fitzgerald has run amok, far afield from his mandate.

Needlenose wonders how the V. Novak testimony fits into Justice Department guidelines "which state that reporters should only be pursued as witnesses in last-resort situations where their testimony is crucial to determining guilt or innocence."

Jeff, I may not have been clear, but the point of my second post was that I think it's very unlikely Woodward's source was being interviewed in June 2003 for the book about Bush's second term, given that the date of the interview was well before the election and fits well into the timeline of the earlier book.

The point of my first post was that Woodward may well have -- in fact, almost certainly -- interviewed Armitage after the election for his take on Powell's resignation (which, though it occured prior to the inauguration, is closely tied to the new term).

Terrie, if the Empty Wheel speculation is true, and Luskin mentioned the Cooper phone call to Novak before Rove told Fitzgerald, Rove should try a combination of an incompetent counsel and insanity defense: his lawyer was nuts. It's difficult to imagine how revealing the the conversation with Cooper to another Time reporter while keeping it from the grand jury would work to Rove's advantage.

I zoomed into the Strata-Sphere" to read the criticism of Fitzgerald's questioning of Novak (which, not surprisingly, I tend to agree with), and I discovered a new post from AJStrata casting doubt on TM's Armitage theory. I must say, it left me confused. First, it asserts that Armitage has denied being the source, which, if true, is news to me. Second, it seems to argue that Armitage wasn't a source for Plan of Attack because he wouldn't have spoken so negatively about his friend Powell's boss, Bush. I'm not sure I follow the logic, since no one says he was the sole source for the book. I'm doubt if I'm doing Strata's post justice, since frankly I don't understand his argument.

Reading the two Time columns TM linked to, I saw nothing in the Oct. 15, 2004 column that might have piqued Fitzgerald's interest. The July 17, 2005 column contains some quotes attibuted directly to Luskin which were pretty clearly made after the Cooper conversation was already made public.

I'd guess, if anything in the article was of interest to Fitzgerald, it's:

But Rove had learned Plame's identity from someone: a source who has been briefed on Rove's account to Fitzgerald, says Novak called Rove the next day, July 8, and mentioned to him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. According to the source, Rove replied, "I've heard that too," and told Fitzgerald that he had heard it from a reporter -- or perhaps from someone else in the Administration who said he got it from a reporter -- Rove just couldn't be certain or remember which one.

It may be worth remembering how Luskin supposedly gave Fitzgerald some information at the last minute that forestalled a Rove indictment. Perhaps the questions to Viveca Novak are an attempt to verify Luskin's information.

What had Woodward learned, or what could he possibly have learned, that became the catalyst for this person to come forward?

My theory from the get-go has been this:

Woodward hears Fitz's incorrect statement about Libby being the first to reveal Plame's identity. He knows that to be false, so he calls his source and suggests the source needs to contact Fitz. The source resists and refuses to release Woodward from their confidentiality agreement.

Woodward then suggests to the source that his "reporting process" doesn't require him to honor the confidentiality after the source's death---as in Deep Throat. After the source's death, Woodward would reveal (or leave instructions to reveal) his identity as the leaker who knowingly allowed Libby's indictment to be based on faulty information.

Assuming this source cares about his legacy, he wouldn't want such an item prominently appended to every historical reference to his career.

I think Woodward played hardball with the source, who then "had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor".
_______________________

Question: Given that the source went to Fitz AFTER the GJ was adjourned, his testimony isn't subject to GJ secrecy. Is Fitz required to reveal Woodward's source to Libby's attorneys????

"The speculation has Luskin talking to Novak about Rove's conversation with Cooper at a time before Rove "officially" remembered the Cooper call, thus contradicting Rove's testimony."

While that sounds interesting at first blush I don't see what Fitz would or could do with it.

Assuming Luskin said something about the Cooper convo to Novak prior to Rove 'remembering', and Fitz judges Rove to have therefore lied, how would he prove it?

Novak could only testify about a conversation with Luskin, and Luskin couldn't testify at all. I don't think that adds up very well.

*sigh*

Fitz seems to be doing everything except trying to get to the bottom of who leaked classified info. How is Luskin's conversation with Novak going to help him find out who started leaking Plame status, or name, or whatever?

Either he's very subtle and is going to get to the bottom of it, or he's figured the referral was bogus and is now slapping the annoyances that disturbed his regal procession.
===============================================